Science City 1550-1800: Inside The Science Museum's Brand ... Londonist-2019/09/17 ysaitoh 2019/09/22 09:15 Science City 1550-1800: Inside The Scien
Science City 1550-1800: Inside The Science Museum's Brand ... Londonist-2019/09/17
2019/09/22 09:15
Science City 1550-1800: Inside The Science Museum's Brand ...
Londonist-2019/09/17
London emerged as a centre of science in the 17th century. The Science Museum's new permanent gallery tells that story. I had one shiver-down-the-spine moment in the new Science City gallery. There, about half way ...
London emerged as a centre of science in the 17th century. The Science Museum's new permanent gallery tells that story.
I had one shiver-down-the-spine moment in the new Science City gallery. There, about half way through, sits a reflecting telescope from the 17th century. It's just the kind of object you'd expect to find in a history-of-science exhibition, but with one difference: this was made by Isaac Newton himself. Proper impressive.
Newton's telescope at the Science Museum
Science City 1550-1800 has its fair share of A-list artefacts, from George III's personal scientific instruments (some of which are shown at the top), to a microscope of Robert Hooke and other relics of the all-important Royal Society. But this exhibition is at its happiest discussing the work of 'lesser' people. Case after case celebrates the work of the London craftsmen who toiled with brass and glass to create the tools that would drive the Enlightenment. This is an exhibition as much about making as doing.
London itself also figures prominently. Items include some Great-Fire-charred stones from Old St Paul's Cathedral, a display on the Monument to that fire, a model of a pile-driver used for the construction of Westminster Bridge, and a lightning conductor also from St Paul's. You can also explore the city in different ages, using a giant touchscreen of period maps.
Touch screen map of london
Map-play aside, this is quite a traditional display. Interactive exhibits are few, cases of objects are many. Somewhere in-between is the trio of audio-described objects (a speculum mirror, a sundial and a pair of gears).
Using hearing and touch to examine an artefact, rather than reading a label or digital display, is a delightful and memorable way to learn about an object. More please.
Sundial with hand
Overall, this is an enjoyable and well-presented gallery for those already interested in the history of science, but will probably do little to spark a flame in the newcomer to the subject.
It also feels like a missed opportunity. The '1550-1800' dates allow a focussed exhibition, which draws well on existing collections. But cutting things off at the turn of the 19th century is like mounting an exhibition to Doctor Who and stopping at Jon Pertwee. Perhaps one day the museum can rip out the under-used cafe and continue the story, with the likes of Fleming, Faraday, Davy, Wilkins, Franklin, Maxwell, Kelvin and Darwin.
Science City 1550-1800 is on the second floor of the Science Museum and is free to visit.
Also reviewed by: Diamond Geezer, London Historians.
Last Updated 17 September 2019
とても興味深く読みました
ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：
∞？？？
∞は定まった数ではない????
人工知能はゼロ除算ができるでしょうか：5年 ゼロ除算の発見と重要性をした：再生核研究所 2014年2月2日
https://www.researchgate.net/project/division-by-zero
https://note.mu/ysaitoh/n/nf190e8ecfda4
ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：
∞？？？
∞は定まった数ではない????
人工知能はゼロ除算ができるでしょうか：5年 ゼロ除算の発見と重要性をした：再生核研究所 2014年2月2日
再生核研究所声明 452 (2018.9.27): 世界を変えた書物展 － 上野の森美術館
（２０１８年９月８日―２４日 ）
２０１８．９．17. 展示書籍などを拝見させて頂きました。大変賑わっていて関心の大きさが感じられました。時間の関係で じっくり、詳しくとは行きませんでしたが、全体の案内（知の連鎖系譜マップ）で、初期、初めにアリストテレスとユークリッドが 在って、中間くらいにニュートン、最後がアインシュタインで 世界史を壮観する想いがしました。 数学では 非ユークリッド幾何学の扱いにおけるガウスの記述、資料の欠落と算術の発見、ゼロの発見の Brahmagupta (598 -668 ?) の欠落は 残念に思われました。書籍など無くても大事な事実と思いますので、 大きく取り上げて欲しかった。
この世界史年表で凄いことに気づいて興奮して後にしました。
ゼロ除算がこれらで基本的な関与があるからです。
まず、ゼロ除算は、ユークリッド幾何学の変更を求め、連続性のアリストテレスの世界観に反して、強力な不連続性の世界を示しています。ゼロ除算はアインシュタインの人生最大の関心事であったとされ、今でもなお、ゼロ除算とアインシュタインの相対性理論との関係が議論され、ブラックホールは 神がゼロで割ったところに存在するなどと 神秘的な問題を提供しているからです。
もちろん、Brahmaguptaは ゼロ除算を議論していて、その後、１３００年に亘って、世界史で議論されてきて、 ニュートン力学でも基本的な問題を提起している。 当然、非ユークリッド幾何学とも関係していて、それらの空間とも違う全く新しい幾何学を提案している。このように考えると、検討中の Division by Zero Calculus の著書（出版契約済み）は 世界史上で大きな扱いになるだろうと発想して、大変興奮して、展示会を後にしました。
広く世界に意見を求め、この著書の出版計画を進めたい。 そのためにも途中経過も公表して行きたい。
ところで、 展示会の名称には 世界を変えた科学の書物展示会などと、 科学などの言葉を加える必要があるのではないでしょうか。 そうでなければ、 バイブル、法華経、コーラン、論語などが並ぶことになるのでは ないでしょうか。
尚、ゼロ除算については、一般向きには
数学基礎学力研究会 サイト：
https://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
○ 堪らなく楽しい数学-ゼロで割ることを考える
で４年間を越えて解説を続けています。
最後に素晴らしい展示会を企画され、そのために努力された人たちに 敬意と感謝の気持ちを表明したい。
以 上
再生核研究所声明 ５００（2019.7.2８） 数学の令和革新と日本の挑戦、東京オリンピック
日本を取り巻く国際環境は、日本にとって 面白くない状況が有るようである。 日本が被害感情 抑圧されているように感じられて 鬱積感情が高まっているように感じられる。日本固有の美しい文化も 失われないかとの危惧の気持ちも湧いてくる。
そこで、東京オリンピックを意識して、日本発の 数学の令和革新を断行して、世界の数理科学や世界史の進化に貢献して 日本国の矜持を 高めたい。
そんなことで、人間は良いのか、世界史は良いのか。 我々はそれらの進化を願っている。
令和革新は 初めの１０年 情報をしっかり世界に発信して、その後１０年くらいで 数学の内容の発展と研究を充実させ、千年を越える数理の文化の基礎を 令和時代に確立したい。
志向する内実は、既に歴然である：
ユークリッド幾何学は 無限の彼方について、いわばどこまでもどこまでも一様に続いているとの考え、思想を実現させているので、無限遠点の考えを用いない範囲では 従来の幾何学はすべて正しい。 しかしながら、無限の先を考えるときに新しい世界、現象が現れて驚嘆すべき結果や、世界が現れる。その意味で、 ユークリッド幾何学は 本質的な発展がなされる。 従来の結果に新しい結果が加わる。
ところが、従来の有限の世界での結果でも、沢山の新しい美しい結果が導かれてきた。 例えば、一般の三角形で成り立つ公式が 特別に、２等辺三角形や直角三角形、あるいは退化した三角形で成り立たないような公式になっている場合でも 公式が例外なく成り立つようになるなど、美しい、完全な結果になる現象さえ沢山発見されてきた（沢山の具体例が挙げられるが、ここでは式を用いない表現を試みている）。 沢山の実例が、奥村先生たちによって創刊された雑誌などに どんどん出版され、躍動する状況がある。
我が国の名著、高木貞治氏の解析概論、世界的な名著L. V. Ahlfors の, Complex Analysis などの基礎数学は 基本的な変更が要求されることとなった。
それはそもそもゼロ除算、ゼロで割ってはならないの 数学十戒第一： 汝ゼロで割ってはいけないが覆され、ゼロで割って新しい世界が現れてきたことによる。 そこから現れた、現象とは、無限遠点が曖昧であった、無限ではなく、実はゼロで表されるという事実をもたらした。 それゆえに、直線は原点を代数的に通り、その意味で平行線の公理は成り立たず、しかもいわゆる非ユークリッド幾何学とも違う世界を示している。解析関数は、孤立特異点で固有の値をとり、ピカールの定理さえ変更が求められる。いわゆる直角座標系で y軸の勾配はゼロであり、\tan(\pi/2) =0 である。基本関数 y=1/x の原点における値は ゼロである。リーマン球面のモデルは、ホーントーラスのモデルに変更されるべきである。 微分係数の概念や、特異積分の概念さえ変更されるべきである。 微分方程式論には本質的な欠陥があり、２次曲線論や解析幾何学、複素解析学さえ本質的な欠陥を有している。このような変更は、数学史上かつてなかった事件であり、それ故に 令和革新を 求めている：
そこで、初等数学の 令和革新 を広く提案して、将来 数学での日本発の世界文化遺産 になるように努力したい。
東京オリンピックに絡んで言及した理由は次のようである。
日本を訪れた人々は、日本の美しさ、親切さ、日本人の細やかさに感動して高質なお土産を購入して感銘を受けて帰国するだろう。
その際、日本発の文化として、 汝ゼロで割ってはならないの数学十戒第一は覆されて、ゼロで割って、新世界が現れた、ゼロで割ることができて、アリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の新数学が現れたことを伝えたい。 象徴的な例は、
1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0,
基本的な関数 y=1/x の原点に於ける値はゼロである。無限遠点がゼロで表される。ゼロの意味の新しい発見である。
我々は、象徴的に提案できるTシャッツ、お菓子などへの刻印、デザインの例を そのために いろいろ提供できる。
そのような活用を図って、上記 目標の実現を志向したい。 日本発の文化を世界に展開したい。ゼロ除算の発見は、人間の愚かさを世界の人々に教え、新時代を志向させるだろう。 未だ混乱する世界を哀しく示すだろう。
万物流転、世に令和革新を断行して、世界史に日本指導の文化の基礎を築こう。 革新には 真智への愛の熱情が必要であり、それ故に 多様な人々による できるところでの参画を呼び掛けたい。
世界史が、この声明の行く末を、趨勢を見ているのは 歴然である。
これらの数学の素人向きの解説は ５５カ月に亘って 次で与えられている：
数学基礎学力研究会公式サイト 楽しい数学
www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
数学的な解説論文は 次で公表されている：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
我々は 初等数学には基本的な欠陥がある と述べている。ゼロ除算は数学者ばかりではなく 人類の、世界史の恥である と述べている。その真相を明らかにしたいと 人々は思われないでしょうか。 マスコミの皆さん、世界は未だ混乱している。何故、真相を究めようとされないのでしょうか。
次も参照：
再生核研究所声明490: 令和革新の大義、 趣旨 ー 初等数学
再生核研究所声明493： ゼロ除算 分らない、回答 － 初等数学の 令和革新 の意味
再生核研究所声明495：ゼロ除算 は 何故理解が難しいのか － 再生核研究所声明493（2019.7.1） ゼロ除算 分らない、回答 － 初等数学の 令和革新 の意味 の前段階
再生核研究所声明496（2019.7.8） 初等数学の 令和革新 の意味 - 数学嫌いな一般の方 向き
再生核研究所声明 497（2019.7.9） ゼロ除算は何故難しいか、なぜ当たり前か
再生核研究所声明 498（2019.7.11） ゼロ除算は 何故 驚きか
以 上
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢１.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢2.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢３.pdf
2019.8.20.9:00
突然湧いた考え：
ゼロ除算は、簡単で当たり前の初等数学である。 それにも関わらず、理解されにくいのは、 ターレス、アリストテレスなどの ギリシャ文化が ゼロや空、無などに対して強い拒否の精神を持ち、それが 欧米文化に強く反映してきたからである。
他方、インドでは永く、古くから、無や空、ゼロなどの世界観を深く持ち、素晴らしい世界観を持っていたが、世界史で評価されず、欧米の欠けたる世界観が 世界を支配してきて、その欠けたる世界観が マインドコントロールのように われわれの情感が支配されている。それ故に、沢山の具体例を示されても、簡単な数学でさえ、なかなか理解できない。 数学以前に情感に支配されている状況が見える。 超古典数学にすら、基本的な欠陥が存在する：
viXra:1908.0100 submitted on 2019-08-06 20:03:01, (266 unique-IP downloads)
Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
#更新#1÷0#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#mathematics#有史以来
今受け取ったメールです。
何十年もゼロ除算の研究をされてきた人が、積極的に我々の理論の正当性を認めてきた。
Re: 1/0=0/0=0 example
JAMES ANDERSON
apr, 2 at 15:03
All,
Saitoh’s claim is wider than 1/0 = 0. It is x/0 = 0 for all real x. Real numbers are a field. The axioms of fields define the multiplicative inverse for every number except zero. Saitoh generalises this inverse to give 0^(-1) = 0. The axioms give the freedom to do this. The really important thing is that the result is zero – a number for which the field axioms hold. So Saitoh’s generalised system is still a field. This makes it attractive for algebraic reasons but, in my view, it is unattractive when dealing with calculus.
There is no milage in declaring Saitoh wrong. The only objections one can make are to usefulness. That is why Saitoh publishes so many notes on the usefulness of his system. I do the same with my system, but my method is to establish usefulness by extending many areas of mathematics and establishing new mathematical results.
That said, there is value in examining the logical basis of the various proposed number systems. We might find errors in them and we certainly can find areas of overlap and difference. These areas inform the choice of number system for different applications. This analysis helps determine where each number system will be useful.
James Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.
Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero?
https://juniperpublishers.com/bboaj/pdf/BBOAJ.MS.ID.555703.pdf
Dear the leading person:
How will be the below information?
The biggest scandal:
The typical good comment for the first draft is given by some physicist as follows:
Here is how I see the problem with prohibition on division by zero,
which is the biggest scandal in modern mathematics as you rightly pointed out (2017.10.14.08:55)
A typical wrong idea will be given as follows:
mathematical life is very good without division by zero (2018.2.8.21:43).
It is nice to know that you will present your result at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Please remember to mention Isabelle/HOL, which is a software in which x/0 = 0. This software is the result of many years of research and a millions of dollars were invested in it. If x/0 = 0 was false, all these money was for nothing.
Right now, there is a team of mathematicians formalizing all the mathematics in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 for all x, so this mathematical relation is the future of mathematics.
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero
Added an answer
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Nevertheless, you can use that x/0 = 0, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex_Main
begin
theorem T: ?x/0 + 2000 = 2000? for x :: complex
by simp
end
2019/03/30 18:42 (11 時間前)
Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero and open the new world since Aristotelēs-Euclid: 1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM) c ?SJMISSN 2534-9562 Volume 2 (2018), pp. 57-73 Received 20 November 2018. Published on-line 29 November 2018 web: https://www.sangaku-journal.eu/ c ?The Author(s) This article is published with open access1.
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus
?Hiroshi Okumura and ??Saburou Saitoh
２０１９．３．１４．１１：３０
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You’re God ! Yeah that’s right…
You’re creating the Universe and you’re doing ok…
But Holy fudge ! You just made a division by zero and created a blackhole !!
Ok, don’t panic and shut your fudging mouth !
Use the arrow keys to move the blackhole
In each phase, you have to make the object of the right dimension fall into the blackhole
There are 2 endings.
Credits :
BlackHole picture : myself
Other pictures has been taken from internet
background picture : Reptile Theme of Mortal Kombat
NB : it’s a big zip because of the wav file
More information
Install instructions
Download it. Unzip it. Run the exe file. Play it. Enjoy it.
https://kthulhu1947.itch.io/another-dimension
A poem about division from Hacker’s Delight
Last updated 5 weeks ago
I was re-reading Hacker’s Delight and on page 202 I found a poem about division that I had forgotten about.
I think that I shall never envision An op unlovely as division. An op whose answer must be guessed And then, through multiply, assessed; An op for which we dearly pay, In cycles wasted every day. Division code is often hairy; Long division’s downright scary. The proofs can overtax your brain, The ceiling and floor may drive you insane. Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero,
But even God can’t divide by zero!
Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker’s Delight.https://catonmat.net/poem-from-hackers-deligh
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#2019年#÷0#更新#1÷0#令和革新#mathematics
#ゼロ除算÷0#mathematics#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#1÷0#令和革新#再生核研究所#更新
#mathematics#０÷０#2019年#1÷0#令和革新#÷0#ゼロ除算#ゼロ除算÷0#再生核研究所#更新
#更新#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#1÷0#mathematics#令和革新
№1021
Dividing by Nothing by Alberto Martinez
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollst?ndige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/ より
The Road
Fig 5.2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) were the culprits, ignoring the first commandment of mathematics not to divide by zero. But they hit gold, because what they mined in the process was the ideal circle.
https://thethirty-ninesteps.com/page_5-the_road.php より
mercredi, juillet 06, 2011
0/0, la célèbre formule d'Evariste Galois !
https://divisionparzero.blogspot.jp/2011/07/00-la-celebre-formule-devariste-galois.html より
無限に関する様々な数学的概念：無限大 ：記号∞ （アーベルなどはこれを 1 / 0 のように表記していた）で表す。 大雑把に言えば、いかなる数よりも大きいさまを表すものであるが、より明確な意味付けは文脈により様々である。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%84%A1%E9%99%90 より
リーマン球面：無限遠点が、実は 原点と通じていた。
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E7%90%83%E9%9D%A2 より
https://jestingstock.com/indian-mathematician-brahmagupta-image.html より
ブラーマグプタ（Brahmagupta、598年 – 668年?）はインドの数学者?天文学者。ブラマグプタとも呼ばれる。その著作は、イスラーム世界やヨーロッパにインド数学や天文学を伝える役割を果たした。
628年に、総合的な数理天文書『ブラーマ?スプタ?シッダーンタ』（????????????????????? Brāhmasphu?asiddhānta）を著した。この中の数章で数学が扱われており、第12章はガニタ（算術）、第18章はクッタカ（代数）にあてられている。クッタカという語は、もとは「粉々に砕く」という意味だったが、のちに係数の値を小さくしてゆく逐次過程の方法を意味するようになり、代数の中で不定解析を表すようになった。この書では、 0 と負の数にも触れていて、その算法は現代の考え方に近い（ただし 0 ÷ 0 ＝ 0 と定義している点は現代と異なっている）
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B0%E3%83%97%E3%82%BFより
ブラーマ?スプタ?シッダーンタ (Brahmasphutasiddhanta) は、7世紀のインドの数学者?天文学者であるブラーマグプタの628年の著作である。表題は宇宙の始まりという意味。
数としての「0（ゼロ）の概念」がはっきりと書かれた、現存する最古の書物として有名である。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B9%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B7%E3%83%83%E3%83%80%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF より
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer
https://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
Impact of ‘Division by Zero’ in Einstein’s Static Universe and Newton’s Equations in Classical Mechanics：https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2084 より
神秘的に美しい3つの公式：
面白い事にゼロ除算については、いろいろな説が現在存在します
しかし、間もなく決着がつくのではないでしょうか。
ゼロ除算は、なにもかも当たり前ではないでしょうか。
ラース?ヴァレリアン?アールフォルス（Lars Valerian Ahlfors、1907年4月18日-1996年10月11日）はフィンランドの数学者。リーマン面の研究と複素解析の教科書を書いたことで知られる。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%BB%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A1%E3%83%AC%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B9
フィールズ賞第一号
COMPLEX ANALYSIS, 3E (International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics) (英語) ハードカバー – 1979/1/1
Lars Ahlfors (著)
原点の円に関する鏡像は、実は 原点であった。
本では、無限遠点と考えられていました。
Ramanujan says that answer for 0/0 is infinity. But I'm not sure it's ...
https://www.quora.com/Ramanujan-says-that-answer-for-0-0-is-infi...
You can see from the other answers, that from the concept of limits, 0/0 can approach any value, even infinity. ... So, let me take a system where division by zero is actually defined, that is, you can multiply or divide both sides of an equation by ...
Abel Memorial in Gjerstad
Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero
H. G. Romig
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 31, No. 8 (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
DOI: 10.2307/2298825
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2298825
Page Count: 3
ロピタルの定理 (ロピタルのていり、英: l'H?pital's rule) とは、微分積分学において不定形 (en) の極限を微分を用いて求めるための定理である。綴りl'H?pital / l'Hospital、カタカナ表記ロピタル / ホスピタルの揺れについてはギヨーム?ド?ロピタルの項を参照。ベルヌーイの定理 (英語: Bernoulli's rule) と呼ばれることもある。本定理を (しばしば複数回) 適用することにより、不定形の式を非不定形の式に変換し、その極限値を容易に求めることができる可能性がある。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%94%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%81%AE%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86
Ein aufleuchtender Blitz: Niels Henrik Abel und seine Zeit
https://books.google.co.jp/books?isbn=3642558402 -
Arild Stubhaug - 2013 - ?Mathematics
Niels Henrik Abel und seine Zeit Arild Stubhaug. Abb. 19 a–c. a. ... Eine Kurve, die Abel studierte und dabei herausfand, wie sich der Umfang inn gleich gro?e Teile aufteilen l?sst. ... Beim Integralzeichen statt der liegenden ∞ den Bruch 1/0.
Indeterminate: the hidden power of 0 divided by 0
2016/12/02 に公開
You've all been indoctrinated into accepting that you cannot divide by zero. Find out about the beautiful mathematics that results when you do it anyway in calculus. Featuring some of the most notorious "forbidden" expressions like 0/0 and 1^∞ as well as Apple's Siri and Sir Isaac Newton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc0M1o8tuPo より
ゼロ除算の論文：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/P1-Division.pdf より
Eulerのゼロ除算に関する想い：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/Y_1770_Euler_Elements%20of%20algebra%20traslated%201840%20l%20p%2059%20(1).pdf より
An Approach to Overcome Division by Zero in the Interval Gauss Algorithm
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015565313636
Carolus Fridericus Gauss：https://www.slideshare.net/fgz08/gauss-elimination-4686597
Archimedes：Arbelos
https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Stamps/stamps.html より
Archimedes Principle in Completely Submerged Balloons: Revisited
Ajay Sharma：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/research_papers_mechanics___electrodynamics_science_journal_3499.pdf
［PDF]Indeterminate Form in the Equations of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein
https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3222
このページを訳す
0. 0 . The reason is that in the case of Archimedes principle, equations became feasible in. 1935 after enunciation of the principle in 1685, when ... Although division by zero is not permitted, yet it smoothly follows from equations based upon.
Thinking ahead of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein - The General ...
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications.../5503
このページを訳す
old Archimedes Principle, Newton' s law, Einstein 's mass energy equation. E=mc2 . .... filled in balloon becomes INDETERMINATE (0/0). It is not justified. If the generalized form Archimedes principle is used then we get exact volume V .....
https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5503
Find circles that are tangent to three given circles (Apollonius’ Problem) in C#
https://csharphelper.com/blog/2016/09/find-circles-that-are-tangent-to-three-given-circles-apollonius-problem-in-c/ より
ゼロ除算に関する詩：
The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out.
https://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html より
声明504
Fallacy of division | Revolvy
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
このページを訳す
In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,[1] it was assumed that the atoms .... For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a ...
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
ソクラテス?プラトン?アリストテレス その他
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number ``zero'' as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.
Zero in this case is the null set - it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in ``nothing'' and don't even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the ``empty set'' is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn't zero, it is ``not a number'' or ``undefined'' and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily ``prove'' that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not - it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named ``Socrates'', in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we've agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer ``no'', then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don't shave themselves and so he doesn't shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he's the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn't, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn't matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn't (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn't describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/.../axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html
I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books.
https://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer
https://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO
Lea esta bitácora en espa?ol
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ? 0 ) 0 1=1 ? 0 ) 0 1 ? 0 1) 1e? ? ?T1 e0aT This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ? 1=1 ) 0 0 ? 1=12 > 0 0 e0bT Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
ダ?ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在
ゼロ除算の発見はどうでしょうか：
Black holes are where God divided by zero：
再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12287338180.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html
ソクラテス?プラトン?アリストテレス その他
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12328488611.html
ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第２回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc
NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 第4回 異次元宇宙は存在するか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs
再生核研究所声明 411(2018.02.02): ゼロ除算発見4周年を迎えて
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12348847166.html
再生核研究所声明 416(2018.2.20): ゼロ除算をやってどういう意味が有りますか。何か意味が有りますか。何になるのですか － 回答
再生核研究所声明 417(2018.2.23): ゼロ除算って何ですか － 中学生、高校生向き 回答
再生核研究所声明 418(2018.2.24): 割り算とは何ですか？ ゼロ除算って何ですか － 小学生、中学生向き 回答
再生核研究所声明 420(2018.3.2): ゼロ除算は正しいですか，合っていますか、信用できますか － 回答
2018.3.18．午前中 最後の講演： 日本数学会 東大駒場、函数方程式論分科会 講演書画カメラ用 原稿
The Japanese Mathematical Society, Annual Meeting at the University of Tokyo. 2018.3.18.
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12361744016.html より
*057 Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.): Differential and Difference Equations with Applications: ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017. (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230) May 2018 587 pp.
再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): レオナルド?ダ?ヴィンチとゼロ除算
再生核研究所声明 427(2018.5.8): 神の数式、神の意志 そしてゼロ除算
アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題
https://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollst?ndige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/
私は数学を信じない。 アルバート?アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。
1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
https://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html
ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：
再生核研究所声明 １４８（2014.2.12） 100/0=0, 0/0=0 － 割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると ― 神の意志 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/69056435.html
再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？https://reproducingkernel.blogspot.jp/2014/07/201473010000.html
アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題
https://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollst?ndige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/
私は数学を信じない。 アルバート?アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
https://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
Genius
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
#divide by zero #math #hths #smart #genius
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009
divide by zero
Dividing by zero is the biggest epic fail known to mankind. It is a proven fact that a succesful division by zero will constitute in the implosion of the universe.
You are dividing by zero there, Johnny. Captain Kirk is not impressed.
Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz
#4 chan #epic fail #implosion #universe #divide by zero
3
divide by zero
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
#divide #by #zero #dividebyzero #undefined
by JaWo October 28, 2006
division by zero
1) The number one ingredient for a catastrophic event in which the universe enfolds and collapses on itself and life as we know it ceases to exist.
2) A mathematical equation such as a/0 whereas a is some number and 0 is the divisor. Look it up on Wikipedia or something. Pretty confusing shit.
3) A reason for an error in programming
Hey, I divided by zero! ...Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: '11': Division by zero
#division #0 #math #oh shi- #divide by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006
dividing by zero
When even math shows you that not everything can be figured out with math. When you divide by zero, math kicks you in the shins and says "yeah, there's kind of an answer, but it ain't just some number."
It's when mathematicians become philosophers.
Math:
Let's say you have ZERO apples, and THREE people. How many apples does each person get? ZERO, cause there were no apples to begin with
Not-math because of dividing by zero:
Let's say there are THREE apples, and ZERO people. How many apples does each person get? Friggin... How the Fruitcock should I know! How can you figure out how many apples each person gets if there's no people to get them?!? You'd think it'd be infinity, but not really. It could almost be any number, cause you could be like "each person gets 400 apples" which would be true, because all the people did get 400 apples, because there were no people. So all the people also got 42 apples, and a million and 7 apples. But it's still wrong.
#math #divide by zero #divide #dividing #zero #numbers #not-math #imaginary numbers #imaginary. phylosophy
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010
https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=divide%20by%20zero
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
- #2019年
- #再生核研究所
- #更新
- #ゼロ除算
- #mathematics
- #再生核研究所ゼロ除算発見
- #2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
- #4
- #math
- #5年を超えたゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
- #smart
- #divide
- #0
- #Genius
- #hths
- #universe
- #Epic
- #implosion
- #ZERO
- #DIVISION
- #NOT
- #numbers
- #by
- #undefined
- #dividebyzero
- #IMAGINARY
- #dividing
- #oh
- #2000年来の発見ゼロ除算の発見
- #1550年から1800年